12-01-2003 23:42									#31
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

It wasn't 'already done'. The _MENUS_ were done. Ever heard of concept cars? A screenshot implies nothing about the underlying code or implementation.

Which again, doesn't matter. I'm not sure how you can see the current version of the game, see the ridiculous amounts of options, features, and complexity, and call it a game for the feeble-minded and slow-witted.

	13-01-2003 00:40									#32
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by kalbear It wasn't 'already done'. The _MENUS_ were done. Ever heard of concept cars? A screenshot implies nothing about the underlying code or implementation. Which again, doesn't matter. I'm not sure how you can see the current version of the game, see the ridiculous amounts of options, features, and complexity, and call it a game for the feeble-minded and slow-witted.

I remember them saying most of it was already coded, including the parts they decided to cut.

Where are those ridiculous options and features? IFPs are gone, most government policies are gone, the multi-layered leader system is gone, the spying subgame is mostly gone, religions are long gone, all the really interesting things are gone. I see no real improvement over Moo2, canīt remember anything innovative that is still in. Why not play Moo2 instead; where is the justification for a new game, if they cut everything that was new and interesting? As I see it, Moo3 is now =

	13-01-2003 01:09									#33
	Put an end to popups!

I agree this is just moo2.5 the only thing left from alans design is economic system.The leader system's now a step down from moo2 they dont even command battlegroups anymore while in alans design you had a realistic leader system with a chain of command etc.

	13-01-2003 01:37									#34
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Everything is already coded. It even is in the MOO3 that's coming out, except it is underground, not shown. They said it more than once in interviews and messages.

	13-01-2003 02:19									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune I remember them saying most of it was already coded, including the parts they decided to cut.

Do you really believe that? Think about how long it takes to cut features... certainly not a year. (Also imagine how long beta-testing would have taken if all features were in the game. )
And all this without a mass-market because they would have made a game with an appeal to just the hard-core strategy gamers? Sorry, but QS (and IG) is not producing the game to lose money. And if you want a space sim game you have two options: a) write your own and b) pay someone to write it?

Don't have the money? Then organize it! Maybe you could even get Stars! Supernova get back on track. (you can read what happend to them here ).

quote: As I see it, Moo3 is now =

If that's your opinion why don't you take the consequences and simply don't buy this game. But please do me a favor and stop whining like a kid who didn't get what he wants.
Life's sometimes unfair but it does go on, you know?

	13-01-2003 03:32									#36
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Do we really know what 'the market' wants? There are lots of games already that cater to the lazy and slow-witted, but I suspect most of them donīt like TBS games at all, so why not cater to the hardcore gamers for a change? EU does this, and is quite successful (would be even more successful if it were less buggy.)

Come on, CT. Were not talking about slowwitted people here. Were talking about average people, living average lives, doing normal things. The people whose lifestyles dosn't allow them to spend 30+ hours per week, playing strategy games. Please don't make the mistake of calling them dumb.

Asmodean

	13-01-2003 03:45									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

They seem to be wanting to make the game more mainstream...

Although I thought that the old design (a la the old star trek RTS game) looked much better than the newer one- the newer one seems vacant and empty... less decisions

	13-01-2003 04:12									#38
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Asmodean Come on, CT. Were not talking about slowwitted people here. Were talking about average people, living average lives, doing normal things. The people whose lifestyles dosn't allow them to spend 30+ hours per week, playing strategy games. Please don't make the mistake of calling them dumb. Asmodean

But this is what I am saying. Normal people play Combat Mission, Europa Universalis, Matrix Games, ...

Why do you think average people must be lazy? I donīt have much respect for companies that prefer to cater to the lazy and superficial...

As I see it, Mr. Emrich had a higher opinion of normal people than the QS management...

	13-01-2003 04:25									#39
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Wahngrok If that's your opinion why don't you take the consequences and simply don't buy this game.

I probably will not buy this game. They just want to cash in on the success of the earlier Moos (which were original), why should I support a cheap strat like this?

And yes, additionally I am in the mood to trash this game. After all, they promised a lot, data dumps and all, and kept none of it. How much of what was in the data dumps is now in? 20%? 10?

	13-01-2003 04:29									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

There's a post on 'hype me' that iterates the amount of features you have in Moo3, but it doesn't do a comparison relative to Moo2, so I'll do that instead.

Ground combat is vastly more complicated than either Moo. Multiple troop types, multiple stats per troop, actual important choices regarding weapon types used, actual strategy regarding what to hit, where to hit, how to hit it.

Space combat has a big overhaul. Real time instead of turn-based, task-force based (and thus more strategic) instead of the one ship moves. Fighters are actually useful and designable. As are star bases, system boats. Gone are boarding actions and the ability to micromanage each ship.

Governments have multiple subtypes with their own pros and cons. They are switchable and cause unrest when you do so. Compare to Moo2 with it's one type only government.

Speaking of, unrest is in the game, and is modifiable by oppression, slavery, taxation, too rapid change, government type, leader type, war standing, and race. And citizenship, I suppose.

Good gods, this is going to take a while.

Research has the reability to research multiple fields, like Moo did. Those fields have non-linear dependencies and not all technologies are accessible in the game.

Spying has a ton of differences from Moo2. You train spies for missions - 6 different kinds vs. the 2 original. Spying can actually do a lot of damage to an opponent, and is an important factor in the game. Spying is also centralized, instead of being manufactured throughout your government.

Trade and diplomacy have changed quite a bit as well, though I'm not the most knowledgeable at all of the differences.

The orion senate has been introduced, with all its wackiness.

The universe can be 256 stars big, in different shapes, with multiple planets, moons per star. Planets have a load of different specials compared to Moo2.

Starlanes are quite a big difference relative to the first two. Old movement is still in the game (to my knowledge); starlanes allow some very interesting strategic decisions to be made, while taking away a few as well. Blockading key star systems is useful now.

Similarly, wormholes can be useful now instead of being mostly garbage.

Planets can have scripted queues based on what 'type' they are chosen to be.

And there's more, but I'm tired of saying this over and over. Yes, I'm somewhat bummed that they aren't making this game as complicated as they could have. At the same time, I recognize the amount of complexity already in the game. Each major feature of the game - exploration, research, space combat, ground combat, planet growth, government decisions, ship construction - all are easily at least twice as complex as Moo2 was.

Personally, that makes me interested in the game.

	13-01-2003 05:42									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Yeah, ok, you have summed up about everything that could be said in the defence of Moo3; now to why I believe it doesnīt add up to much:

-Ground Combat: Wrong focus. You are the Emperor, not a squad leader. At this level, ground combat could be as simplified as it was in Moo1, as far as I am concerned. Long term Social Engineering decisions would be a thousand times more appropriate for the role you are playing.

-Real time Space Combat: Bad idea. Simply doesnīt fit with a TBS. Makes Pbem impossible. Makes MP problematic for people with a slow connection. Will crash all the time I bet. And make for truly lousy aesthetics. Of the original Emrich design, two ideas were bad: Real time Space Combat, and the new Races. (The old Races were fun; why fix something that isnīt broken.) They implemented the few bad ideas of Emrichīs, and threw out the many good ones.

Governments, as you describe them, were implemented in CtP. Hardly an original idea, and far from the TRUELY political sim Mr. Emrich envisioned.

Unrest: Welcome to Civ in space: Unrest or no Unrest, no shades of gray, and probably perfectly predictable. Everything straightforward. None of the complexities of real life where decisions have many consequences, some short term, some long term, most of them unforeseen. To create these complexities was the truely wonderful part of Mr. Emrichīs vision, a vision that was cold-bloodedly murdered.

Spying: Good God! You had more Spying Missions in CivII. Do you have an idea what the original Moo3 design wanted to do with this? It would have amounted
to a game in the game.

Everything else: Something added here, something taken away there. Overall: +-0.

And your description is an optimistic one. The completed game could well be worse than your expectation, but, for all we know, it can hardly be better. I see CIVIII DISASTER in large, unfriendly letters written on the horizon.

	13-01-2003 08:13									#42
	Suffering from ads?

quote: -Ground Combat: Wrong focus. You are the Emperor, not a squad leader. At this level, ground combat could be as simplified as it was in Moo1, as far as I am concerned.

quote: Spying: Good God! You had more Spying Missions in CivII. Do you have an idea what the original Moo3 design wanted to do with this?

Wait a minute Comrade Tribune. You don't like the idea of having some small amount of control over Ground Combat, (nothing deeper than Strategic Combat) but you like the idea of having another whole game inside of MOO3 devoted to espionage? Take this for example from the DD.

quote: So, given the circle, and the mission type, the spy now has a potential target list. For example, if the choices were subversion, military, and sports, your spy might work his way into a Sporting event where a likely military officer is also frequently contactable.

They were going to have you acting as a controller (i.e. nursemaid) to your spy force. And you accept that without flinching. On the other hand you rant and rave that ground combat has been given too much depth. What it appears you are arguing for is a game tailored to your particular tastes. Some people might prefer a well developed ground combat system and a espionage system that only let you sabotage military installations, provoke revolts and steal tech. (Not that I am one of those people, I personally prefer espionage to ground combat, but hey, if it is going to have them all they have to be balanced.) In Alan's dream of MOO3 their would have been twenty different games you could play, each one as deep as the Pacific Ocean. (Which would have been the coolest thing under the sun.) People who spent most of their time playing RPGs could spend all their shiny IFPs creating spies and seeding them throughout the galaxy. People who enjoyed galactic politics could spend from now until they died wallowing in the Byzantine depths of galactic intrigue. When IG tried to put it all together they found that it would take 20 years and 500 programmers to put it all together. So things were cut. Some cuts were good and some were questionable. But I am confident what is left is a much improved version of MOO1 and MOO2. Screaming about how they promised to give us ADOM+Hitman+SMAC+Star Wars: Episode 25 won't change anything now.

	13-01-2003 12:19									#43
	Increase Your PM Length

This entire thread is an illustration of why companies probably shouldn't be too forthcoming with their design decisions.

Those of us who know first thing about software development looked at those design docs, smiles crookedly, and thought it'd be interesting to see how much mad it through the crunch. Apparently this wasn't obvious to the public at large.

Perhaps, as the Comrade would put it, it wasn't apparent to the slow witted.

	13-01-2003 16:31									#44
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by moomin Perhaps, as the Comrade would put it, it wasn't apparent to the slow witted.

How often do you have been told they cut a lot of things that had already been programmed? Itīs not me stating this, they themselves said so time and again. If you simply wonīt accept things both sides agree upon as given fact -that most of the complexities could be done and were done!-, then discussion with you is a bit pointless, no?!

	13-01-2003 16:35									#45
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by moomin Those of us who know first thing about software development looked at those design docs, smiles crookedly, and thought it'd be interesting to see how much mad it through the crunch. Apparently this wasn't obvious to the public at large.

Amen. Your words in [deity/similiar concept of choice]'s ear.

	13-01-2003 16:39									#46
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by SeanV On the other hand you rant and rave that ground combat has been given too much depth.

You got me wrong on this.

I have nothing against Ground Combat. I simply donīt consider it necessary. Itīs a luxury. NOT bad -to clear this up-, but not a special reason to buy the game, either.

On the other hand, Social Engineering/Policies was the centerpiece of the design, at least in my subjective understanding, and for me the reason why I liked the idea of Moo3 in the first place.

I mean, if a game is good, itīs not really necessary to produce a successor at all. You can simply play the original. Itīs the successor that must justify its right to exist, and the expense of my $$. Moo3 doesnīt, really.

	13-01-2003 16:43									#47
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by BitMaster Amen. Your words in [deity/similiar concept of choice]'s ear.

Nonsense. Cutting the real time part would have freed enough programming power to include all I would have to liked to see -which is mostly number crunching. Computers were CREATED TO DO THIS WELL. It seems some of you do understand less about the technical aspect than I do. I didnīt want any nifty graphics, quite the opposite.

Ask a real programmer what is difficult and what is not. Spreadsheets arenīt difficult.

	13-01-2003 16:44									#48
	Got spare money?

Comrade, when I first saw their design ideas I had two thoughts:

1) Cool, very detailed (faster though)

2) I wonder if it's not perhaps an overkill... (took a few minutes to arrive after the initial excitement, but I weighed this one higher)


I don't like the current theme in games to make everything very lightweight and "accessable to the mass market". However, I neither like the idea to make everything as complicated as possible. There is more than one reason to throw an idea out of a design document. "Too difficult/expensive to develop" is one. A much more important one (for the actual player) is "wrote it, tried it, was no fun".
I have read what they all have been planning. I'd say I'm neutral to most cuts and actually slightly positive to others. There are a few things I can't agree with right now, but I'll withhold judgement until I have actually played it and seen the whole picture myself.

	13-01-2003 17:11									#49
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Nonsense. Cutting the real time part would have freed enough programming power to include all I would have to liked to see -which is mostly number crunching. Computers were CREATED TO DO THIS WELL. It seems some of you do understand less about the technical aspect than I do. I didnīt want any nifty graphics, quite the opposite.

Orion without some form of tactical combat wouldn't have been Orion, I for one NEVER used the combat-by-ship-value function in Orion 2. On the other hand, the Orion 2 version of tactical combat was completely useless between huge empires. You just could press "Z" and hope to finish the other fleet on first strike. It had great tactical depth if both sides only had a few ships though.
They needed something else, especially since the galaxies (and so the possible empires) can be much larger now. I would never have considered real time as an option to solve it, even considered it "evil". However, after reading a lot from the beta testers and other sources, I'm withholding judgement. I believe it could actually work. If it doesn't I will complain after I played it.

Of course simple spreadsheets are simpler to program. But that doesn't mean more fun (and that's why I play a game). And no MoO was like that.

If you want something else, perhaps visit www.sourceforge.net (or something else if it's suits you better) and search for a free moo-like game on spreadsheets with highest possible complexity. I have seen games were people sacrificed playability for absolute control and detail. I see no point to play a game like that.

quote: Originally posted by Comrade Tribune Ask a real programmer what is difficult and what is not. Spreadsheets arenīt difficult.

Dunno if I count as a "real programmer", being a computer scientist, but I don't understand this argument anyway. First you tell us most of the cuts were already programmed already (don't know about this, and to be honest: don't care either if I like the game) and then you say removing resources from other aspects of the game would have allowed them to implement these concepts they already had implemented? I'd say if they already had so much implemented then we have two very likely scenarios, because I know first hand that a redisign (on the scale they did) causes much more work then going ahead and finishing as planned:
1) IG pressed them to make it simpler for the mass market (possible, but then you are complaining about the wrong people)
2) they found that it didn't add anything to the game while making it overly complicated.
I'd personally favour a combination of those two, but with 2) being definately the mayor factor.

	13-01-2003 18:51									#50
	Increase Your PM Length

I feel vindicated in saying that the design was over-grandiose and that Alan was not a good program manager because he went overboard on the design and made something that wasn't really codeable. Candy Bra should take note. But of course they won't. If they even still exist.

	13-01-2003 19:45									#51
	Remove this text

Some points to consider:

1) Yes, it does appear that the game was simplified to appeal to a broader audience. I won't debate the wisdom of that decision, since you can't judge something like that without looking at sales, customer satisfaction data, etc. In fact, you probably won't ever be able to strongly argue that it *would* have been better a different way, etc.

2) Several of those sliders went away BECAUSE of the other simplifications, rather than being simplifications themselves -- factions and leaders were vastly simplified for example, so they no longer need their own sliders.

3) The TWO sliders that are left are:
- The general "Oppressometer" setting -- which manages the tradeoff between popular unrest due to oppression of freedoms (press, speech, assembly, etc.) vs. the tightness of internal security when it comes to foreign espionage and sabotage.
- The FLU slider, which manages how hard FLUs are worked vs. how long they last, and I believe it affects unrest as well.

4) Comrade: It's just silly to think that the real-time combat is what made the other complexities of the game TOO demanding to keep. You might be able to make a case for the combat engine sucking MANPOWER away from the other areas, but that's about it (and it's a dicey position, since the space combat programmer is probably a graphics specialist and wouldn't be as effective doing the more abstract data-crunching stuff).

I see no reason technically why all of the formulae in the design doc can't be implemented; only time/budget constraints and the challenge to create a USEABLE user-interface to the whole thing.

I'm not saying that this COULDN'T have been done; only that, apparently, this attempt didn't succeed. The reason we all heard was that the effects of user changes were too subtle, or too delayed, for the user to feel in control. So, obviously, that's a problem that needs to be solved if someone wants all of that complexity -- you can't sell the game to 100 people, so you have to either simplify, or find a way for the UI to wrap that complexity in a way that still makes it either accessible to the masses, or easy for the masses to *safely* ignore.

At some point, you HAVE to nail down where along the continuum from "masses" to "grognards" you want the game to be. I mean, they could come up with a massive scheme where the complexity level is a game setup option (so the masses can play it on one setting, and noone is even *allowed* to tinker and min-max their empire to that degree, and the grognards can play it to the max, pitting their ability to manage EVERYTHING against the others).

Somewhere along the way, either time, money, or the chosen approach fell short of that. I'm guessing it was some of all 3.

	13-01-2003 20:20									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

CT:

Before you carry on moaning about the data dumps, please realise that they were put up by Alan as a 'design in progress'. They were not meant to be complete or represent the final project.

They were put there so that the fans had something to read, and so that we could help by pointing out anything that seemed 'wrong' or out of place.

By complaining about the cuts that are an inevitable part of any grand programming scheme, you are providing the *antz and Irenes of the gaming industry with a solid argument for NOT seeking fan feedback or even bothering to keep the fans informed.

	13-01-2003 20:57									#53
	Put an end to popups!

Gotta say I'm looking forward to this game. A lot of good stuff seems to have remained.

R-T ship combat: If they can pull it off I like it. As I understand it this is not going to be a face paced game so it won't devolve into a click fest. Furthermore you can assign hotkeys to your various taskforces so that you can instantly switch from one to the other.

Ground combat: In Moo2 ground combat was a wash. Opponents rarely engaged in fair fights. They'd bombard the planet and then send in the troops to pick up the pieces. In Moo3 they're apparently going to flesh it out a bit. Rumors have that ground combat can be extended over several turns. Unfortunately there seems to be a pattern of multiple combat manuevers. Things like enveloping attack, prong defense is a little involved for me. I'd rather they just give the options of just telling the troops which regions to invade or defend.

	13-01-2003 22:37									#54
	Remove this text

So when is the tentative or guestimated release date?

	13-01-2003 22:38									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Xentax: I even agree with much of your post, but:

quote: Originally posted by Xentax The reason we all heard was that the effects of user changes were too subtle, or too delayed, for the user to feel in control.

Wanting to feel in control versus wanting to understand. My entire complaint with Americans in a nutshell.

	13-01-2003 22:45									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by campfreddie By complaining about the cuts that are an inevitable part of any grand programming scheme, you are providing the *antz and Irenes of the gaming industry with a solid argument for NOT seeking fan feedback or even bothering to keep the fans informed.

So, what? I gave them a lot of initial positive feedback, and they cut everything I liked.

AND I believe they have a honesty problem: They repeatedly promised no further cuts, and then came the next round of cuts. That the internal politics are out was never even announced; I was really aghast to learn this from the Wargamer screenshot. Which means QS has descended to the level of Firaxis: Letting people believe they will get something (such as scenario editor and MP in CivIII) they never intended to deliver! The moral equivalent of fraud, imo.

Promising the hardcore strategy gamerīs game, thriving on the goodwill of this crowd and then deliver something entirely different is what I will never forgive Firaxis. And QS is now doing exactly the same thing.

To abuse fans for hyping a game that then doesnīt deliver is something I can do without. If this is their idea of feedback, they can shove it.

	13-01-2003 22:54									#57
	Support Apolyton

I partially agree with CT on this. MoO3 could've been one of the more famous games, either because it completely changed how you played a game by giving you an approximation of the powers you would have in real life or for being a game that reached so high that it got burned. Either way, that would definiely get attention. Now, this is just another MoO game that could've been done before.

I soooo wish internal politics and IFPs were still there. It made so much sense that you would be a sort of President or Dictator and have to get your subordinates to do the things you wanted them to do. You hire a number-crunching account and you'll know exactly what effects what - but you won't make any bold changes, you pick a succesfull entrepenuer and you can really take risks and either make a lot of money, lose a lot of money, or be party to illegal and fraudalent acts. Plus you would only be giving fairly general outlines on what you would like done, and the human factor would kick in and the job may or may not be done the way you want it done.

	13-01-2003 23:17									#58
	Suffering from ads?

The design was too ambitious. They should have just concentrated on updating the graphics and adding a few new units.

	13-01-2003 23:33									#59
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by GP The design was too ambitious. They should have just concentrated on updating the graphics and adding a few new units.

***

***

Second thoughts: This WAS meant to be sarcasm, right?

	13-01-2003 23:40									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by GP They should have just concentrated on updating the graphics and adding a few new units.

QS & Infogrames agreed with that very statement and thats what your get in a month or so.I get the feeling that MOO3 will get the same reaction that CIV3 got ,good reviews from gamemags/sites due to backhanders etc but the fans will be dissapointed.